ITAT Delhi Judgments — November 2018

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018. The appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer relied on evidence collected behind the assessee's back without confronting it, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the evidence to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A was not applicable as the cash deposit was duly recorded in the assessee's books and the source was explained. The affidavit from the buyer, coupled with the service of summons, was considered sufficient evidence of the transaction.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in deviating from the rule of consistency, as the issue of Annual Letting Value (ALV) had been accepted by the revenue in earlier assessment years under similar circumstances. The addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings under Section 148 were invalid when prior rectification proceedings under Section 154 were dropped without finalization and no new material was presented. The notice under Section 148 was quashed following the precedent of the Calcutta High Court.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO, directing the assessee to produce the lender's director and other substantiating details. The AO was instructed to re-examine the transaction's genuineness and the lender's creditworthiness, without being influenced by the CIT(A)'s observation of nil income.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than the revised monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakhs for filing appeals before the Tribunal, as per CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018.

The Tribunal held that the license granted was non-exclusive and non-transferable, allowing only the use of the software, not the copyright itself. Therefore, the payments did not constitute royalty under the India-Canada DTAA.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiries by obtaining bank statements, sale/purchase bills, and explanations from the assessee regarding the cash deposits. The PCIT had misinterpreted the assessment records and failed to demonstrate what further inquiries were necessary.

The Tribunal held that advertisement and business promotion expenses are indirect revenue expenditures allowable under Section 37(1) and should not be capitalized as work-in-progress. The Tribunal also affirmed the deletion of expenses on gold bars, following a previous year's precedent.

The Tribunal held that the license granted was non-exclusive and non-transferable, allowing only the use of the software, not the copyright itself. Therefore, the payments did not constitute royalty under the India-Canada DTAA.

The Tribunal found that the basis for reopening the assessment was factually incorrect, as the amount of Rs. 10 lacs was not supported by any cheque number as alleged. Consequently, the notice for reassessment was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the license granted was non-exclusive and non-transferable, allowing only the use of the software, not the copyright itself. Therefore, the payments did not constitute royalty under the India-Canada DTAA.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that the purchase deed was not furnished and a relevant Supreme Court judgment was not considered by the lower authorities, the case was set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee is a 100% exporter, interest income derived from FDRs obtained against export business credit facilities should be allowed to be netted for computing the deduction under Section 80HHC.

The Tribunal held that the license granted was non-exclusive and non-transferable, allowing only the use of the software, not the copyright itself. Therefore, the payments did not constitute royalty under the India-Canada DTAA.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bonafide belief that the LFC was exempt, as evidenced by the employer not deducting TDS. Therefore, it could not be said that the assessee concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. The penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid as there was no proper application of mind by the AO to form a belief of escapement of income. Consequently, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal acknowledged that supporting bills were unavailable due to the passage of time. However, it allowed a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs as cost of improvement, directing the Assessing Officer to recompute the capital gain with indexation benefit.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty, finding that the cash book produced for the first time before the Tribunal lacked evidentiary value as it was likely prepared afterwards. The assessee's claim of surrendering income to 'purchase peace' was not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the license granted was non-exclusive and non-transferable, allowing only the use of the software, not the copyright itself. Therefore, the payments did not constitute royalty under the India-Canada DTAA.

The Tribunal noted that no one appeared on behalf of the assessee despite proper intimation of the hearing date. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals to Rs. 20 Lakhs, was applicable. The Tribunal found that the Revenue should not have filed these appeals and accordingly dismissed them.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The circular was also applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was less than Rs. 20 lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018. The Revenue could not demonstrate that the appeal fell under any exceptions to the circular.

The Tribunal held that the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which mandates not filing appeals where the tax effect is less than Rs. 20 Lakhs, was applicable. The Tribunal noted that the circular also applies retrospectively to pending appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable as the tax effect was less than Rs. 20 lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 03 of 2018. The Revenue could not demonstrate that the appeal fell under any exceptions to the circular.

The Tribunal held that while the assessees were indeed entry providers, the commission rate of 0.60% was excessive. It reduced the estimated commission rate to 0.30% and directed the AO to allow the benefit of income already declared by the assessees.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without clearly establishing the genuineness of the assessee's adjournment requests. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without substantiating service of notice of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the principles of natural justice were violated.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that improper presentation before lower authorities led to injustice. Therefore, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's non-appearance and lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal, decided to dismiss the appeal without adjudicating its merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction by commenting on the validity of the 12AA registration granted by the CIT(Exemptions). It is the prerogative of the CIT(Exemptions) to decide on the allowability of such registration. The CIT(A) should have confined himself to the issues raised in the appeal and could have enhanced the addition made by the AO, which is within his powers, but not by questioning the authority of another tax authority. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s findings on this aspect were set aside. Regarding the AO's action, the Tribunal found that the AO doubted the surplus without examining each item of income. Consequently, this issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination of each income item, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The enhancement made by the CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO's order was restored to his file for de novo adjudication. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction by commenting on the validity of the 12AA registration granted by the CIT(Exemptions). It is the prerogative of the CIT(Exemptions) to decide on the allowability of such registration. The CIT(A) should have confined himself to the issues raised in the appeal and could have enhanced the addition made by the AO, which is within his powers, but not by questioning the authority of another tax authority. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s findings on this aspect were set aside. Regarding the AO's action, the Tribunal found that the AO doubted the surplus without examining each item of income. Consequently, this issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination of each income item, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The enhancement made by the CIT(A) was set aside, and the AO's order was restored to his file for de novo adjudication. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal dismissed the transfer pricing grounds as withdrawn. For the corporate tax ground, the Tribunal directed the AO to follow the DRP's directions regarding depreciation on capitalized expenses.

The Tribunal held that the suspension of trading in 2015 did not invalidate transactions made in 2013. It found no direct evidence to prove the assessee's involvement in accommodation entries, deeming the transactions genuine.

The Tribunal, following precedent, held that the appeal was not being prosecuted by the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the requirement to pay tax before filing an appeal is directory, not mandatory. If the defect is cured by payment before the appeal is disposed of, the appeal should be admitted and decided on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were vitiated due to the non-issuance of a mandatory notice under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act. The assessment order was therefore quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice and fair play. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that while the assessees were indeed entry providers, the commission rate of 0.60% was excessive. It reduced the estimated commission rate to 0.30% and directed the AO to allow the benefit of income already declared by the assessees.

The Tribunal held that while the assessees were indeed entry providers, the commission rate of 0.60% was excessive. It reduced the estimated commission rate to 0.30% and directed the AO to allow the benefit of income already declared by the assessees.

The Tribunal restored the issue of bogus purchases to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing specific examination of evidence. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for bogus liability.

The Tribunal held that while the assessees were indeed entry providers, the commission rate of 0.60% was excessive. It reduced the estimated commission rate to 0.30% and directed the AO to allow the benefit of income already declared by the assessees.

The Tribunal held that while the assessees were indeed entry providers, the commission rate of 0.60% was excessive. It reduced the estimated commission rate to 0.30% and directed the AO to allow the benefit of income already declared by the assessees.

The Tribunal held that while the assessees were indeed entry providers, the commission rate of 0.60% was excessive. It reduced the estimated commission rate to 0.30% and directed the AO to allow the benefit of income already declared by the assessees.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was liable for cancellation because the penalty notice did not explicitly specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. SSA Emerald Meadows, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect as per the CBDT circular. The Senior DR did not press the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the additions were made solely on the strength of a third party's statement without allowing the assessee to cross-examine them, violating principles of natural justice. The direct documentary evidence of share transactions through banking channels could not be ignored.

The Tribunal held that while the assessees were indeed entry providers, the commission rate of 0.60% was excessive. It reduced the estimated commission rate to 0.30% and directed the AO to allow the benefit of income already declared by the assessees.